---

Pet Passports

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr. Caton. I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing the debate, which draws our attention to the important issue of how the UK protects itself against diseases carried by animals, and to the burden that responsible pet ownership can place on people who want to travel with their pets. We need to maintain our protection against rabies and other serious diseases while allowing people to move as freely as possible with their pets. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving my office advance notice of specific issues that he would raise. I hope that I am able to respond to all of them in the course of my remarks. Clearly, if I do not or am not able to, I would be happy to write to him in due course. Rabies is a truly devastating disease and is almost invariably fatal once a patient exhibits symptoms. Across the world, it kills some 55,000 people a year, largely in India, south-east Asia and Africa. Apart from infrequent cases in quarantine, the UK has been fortunate to be free from rabies for many decades, and the situation in continental Europe has greatly improved in recent years. The risk of rabies, as well as the possibility of picking up other diseases, means that no owner should take the responsibility of travelling with their pet lightly. It is a serious business, as the hon. Gentleman said, and, although we have serious controls in place to mitigate the risk, a strong burden of responsibility falls on pet owners. For many years, quarantine was this country's main defence against rabies. All animals entering the UK had to be isolated for six months in approved quarantine facilities. That ended when we introduced the pet travel scheme in 2000. It was designed to offer protection against disease risks to animals and the public while allowing people flexibility to travel with their pets. The pet travel scheme introduced a dual system: pets from high-risk countries still spend six months in quarantine, but pets entering from some lower-risk countries including European Union members and the United States, are, in effect, allowed to serve their quarantine period in the country of origin. Such animals now enter with a passport that proves that they have been microchipped and vaccinated, that their blood has been tested to check that the vaccine has taken effect, and that they have waited for six months. The six-month wait is to ensure that the animal had not already been infected with rabies. There is a further requirement for owners to treat their pets against ticks and tapeworm. The treatment must be applied between 24 and 48 hours before travelling. The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about tapeworm. UK tick and tapeworm controls are in place to minimise the risk of certain diseases entering the UK as animals move under the pet travel scheme without spending time in quarantine. Tapeworm controls deal with Echinococcus multilocularis, which causes an extremely unpleasant liver disease in humans. It usually proves fatal if not treated, and even with treatment leads to dangerous chronic illness. Tick treatments aim to deal with a variety of ticks that have the potential to become established in the UK. The hon. Gentleman realises the significance of tapeworms. He asked about timing of the treatment. It must be given 24 to 48 hours before travelling, not six months. The 24 to 48-hour window ensures that animals excrete any tapeworm eggs before travelling to the UK, and that they have not had a chance to be re-infected in the country of origin. The hon. Gentleman asked about discretion in the rules. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has no power to authorise exemptions from the requirements of the pet travel scheme. The rules are clearly set out in legislation, and, given what I said about the seriousness of rabies, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members would want the Government to maintain a robust approach to the controls. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, out of more than 500,000 pet journeys, there have been an extremely small number of cases in which, outside the pet travel scheme, Ministers have decided to exempt animals from the standard quarantine requirements. That has only happened when the owner was able to demonstrate the most extreme personal circumstances and needed to be reunited with their animal. Even in those cases, certain restrictions on the handling and movement of the animal were rigorously enforced. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give specific details of those cases, but I can assure him and others that Ministers give all such matters the most serious consideration. The hon. Gentleman also raised the problem of illegal imports. No system is perfect, and there will always be people who try to break the law. The nature of that activity means that it is difficult to specify the number of animals illegally imported. However, we enforce the law, and I can inform him that we detected 196 illegal landings in 2008. We factor illegal activity into our risk assessments. We consider the implications for enforcement of the scheme, and we have strong penalties in place for offenders. The existence of the pet travel scheme itself is an important incentive to comply; previously, all animals had to serve six months in quarantine. The hon. Gentleman asked whether there should be different rules for British animals. The rules of the pet travel scheme are designed to protect human health, native pets, and animals that travel with their owners. Animals that comply and can demonstrate that they have been effectively vaccinated, whether they are from the UK or not, can travel freely between European member states and listed third countries, such as the United States, Canada and Australia. Only those that cannot fully demonstrate that they meet the rules are required to re-prepare for entry. On the rights of disabled people, the hon. Gentleman raised a point about individuals taking dogs on to aircraft. I was previously aviation Minister, but no longer. On behalf of the Department for Transport, I signed the protocol to which the hon. Gentleman referred, which is relatively new and still working its way through. I am sure that is one of the reasons why there is no comprehensive endorsement from airlines or airports—it is still being developed, and some are still trying to comply. There is a European regulation that sets out people's rights in that respect. It requires European airlines to carry assistance dogs—including guide dogs—in the passenger cabin of the aircraft with their owner at no extra charge. That is subject to any national rules that may apply, such as the pet travel scheme. Under the approval scheme for carrying pets—including assistance dogs—into the UK, airlines will enter into a contract with our animal health agency to demonstrate that they have the means and facilities to check those animals on arrival. DEFRA, the animal health agency and the Department for Transport continue to work closely and meet with airlines, including no-frills operators, to advise on that process. Ultimately, however, it is up to the airlines to seek approval. As things stand, the derogation that enables the United Kingdom to retain our current pet movement controls comes to an end in June next year—although the European Commission last week promised that the derogation could be extended until the end of 2011. As we consider future controls, we are in close discussion with the Commission and other member states about what a European system should be. We have to balance the evidence of risk from rabies, tapeworm and tick-borne diseases, which affect everyone, against the burden on pet owners who wish to travel with their pets. I accept that it is particularly difficult when the law, which has safeguards written in for sound reasons, throws up unusual and distressing cases. The Government must continue to comply with European and national law as they stand, but as we consider the future of our pet controls, we have an opportunity to think about where more flexibility is possible. I will therefore carefully consider the issue of flexibility in our discussions with the European Commission and other member states on future pet movements. The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of his constituent, and has described how our controls may impose a burden on individuals in the name of protecting animals and the wider public. I sympathise and understand how frustrating the situation must be. It is unfortunate that it seems that mistakes, as he has outlined, by private veterinary surgeons meant that on two separate occasions the animal did not comply with the requirements of the UK pet travel scheme. Let me explain why the pet was refused entry into the UK. The first time, as I understand it, the animal's microchip failed. If we cannot identify a dog at the border, we cannot be sure that it has been vaccinated against rabies, blood-tested and treated for tick-borne diseases and tapeworm, as I have described. The microchip is the key to the pet travel scheme and it is the most cost-effective and reliable means of identification. On the second occasion, the blood sample that tested whether the dog's rabies vaccination had been effective was sent to the wrong laboratory in the United States. Between 2 and 5 per cent. of rabies vaccinations do not work and a test is required to ensure that the vaccine has taken effect. The law states that the test must be:""carried out in an approved laboratory"." That means a laboratory that has been accredited by the European Union. That gives us the assurance that we can trust the work that is done at laboratories and the assurance that that work follows a standardised process. The hon. Gentleman said that there were 4,800 problems with animals in the last year for which we have figures. That is true, but that is out of 115,000 animals, and the problems mostly arose because of expired vaccinations. So we are talking about less than 5 per cent. of cases. Some might be small matters that do not require a great deal of activity and can be dealt with quite quickly. In the vast majority of cases, the scheme is clearly working very effectively.